Arianism Vs. the Trinity

[coolrok7]

This thread is a spin off of the subtitle,

[cdowis]

Mormons also share a common misunderstanding of the

[semlogo]

The funny thing about religious history is that the winners get to call the losers heretics. It's meaningless.

[coolrok7]

I will correct that misunderstanding.

That wasn't the misunderstanding I pointed out (you didn't correct the point), it was the modalistic view of God (identified as heresy by Hannah Rebekah) which is not the Trinitarian view of the nature of God. I will be adding more to this.

[coolrok7]

The funny thing about religious history is that the winners get to call the losers heretics. It's meaningless.

Who the heretics are are that by virtue that there is a standard to identify them as such which is not meaningless.

[thesometimesaint]

coolrok7:

Telling others what they believe is bad manners.

[semlogo]

Who the heretics are are that by virtue that there is a standard to identify them as such which is not meaningless.

In this case, the standard is who won the vote.

[Anijen]

The funny thing about religious history is that the winners get to call the losers heretics. It's meaningless.

Especially when the use of Wikipedia as a primary source. Anytime a source that uses anonymous authors, not peer reviewed plus anyone can modify an entry is suspect and certainly should not be considered a reliable source. I love Wikipedia but only for a heads up or for quick information on the subject.

[coolrok7]

In this case, the standard is who won the vote.

Do you subscribe to modalism as a correct non-heretical view? If not then your point is not a point at all. Scripture is the Standard, not a vote.

[coolrok7]

Especially when the use of Wikipedia as a primary source. Anytime a source that uses anonymous authors, not peer reviewed plus anyone can modify an entry is suspect and certainly should not be considered a reliable source. I love Wikipedia but only for a heads up or for quick information on the subject.

That is what it was.

[Vance]

Mormons also share a common misunderstanding of the

[coolrok7]

coolrok7:

Telling others what they believe is bad manners.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth.

[thesometimesaint]

Coolrok7:

Telling others what they believe is bad manners. Or maybe this statement of yours strikes a bell.

"Mormons also share a common misunderstanding of the

[coolrok7]

Not really. I understand perfectly that you believe that there are three different persons in the one being.

You use a special definition of person (a form of special pleading). It would be more accurate to use the term "personality" rather than "person", but then the trinitarian God would be suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Can't have that, so you use "person", but you don't really mean "person" but personality.

So these three "persons" are mysteriously contained within one being. Of course it would be nice if there were some Biblical support for this one "being" thing, but alas, there isn't.

That is not what I said. To clarify, its three "persons" or personas (in their identity as existing in their nature as God but not a "plurality of g(G)ods) of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)= the one God of Biblical recorded revelation.

[Vance]

Scripture is the Standard, not a vote.

Humm,

Still looking for that "one being" or "one substance" verse. I haven't found it yet. If you find it before I do, will you let me know where it is?

Also can't find "immaterial" anywhere.

[coolrok7]

Coolrok7:

Telling others what they believe is bad manners. Or maybe this statement of yours strikes a bell.

"Mormons also share a common misunderstanding of the

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Vance]

This is modalsim not Trinitarianism.

And Trinitarianism is not true Monotheism.

[semlogo]

Do you subscribe to modalism as a correct non-heretical view? If not then your point is not a point at all. Scripture is the Standard, not a vote.

Objectively speaking, there is no correct, non-heretical view.

There is no such thing as a "scripture standard" because each group interprets the same scriptures differently, just as it pleases.

[Anijen]

IMO I don't know of a single Christian religion that is truly monotheistic.

[Vance]

THE CHURCHES ALSO TAUGHT THAT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST, HIS SON, WERE BOTH THE SAME PERSON. . . .

The meaning of person in this quote is the STANDARD dictionary definition, not the special definition that you Trinitarians use.

You know "person" as in "individual" or separate being. That definition.

[Vance]

That is not what I said. To clarify, its three "persons" or personas (in their identity as existing in their nature as God but not a "plurality of g(G)ods) of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)= the one God of Biblical recorded revelation.

And how is that different from what I described?

I said three "persons" is one being. Isn't that what your are also saying?

[coolrok7]

The meaning of person in this quote is the STANDARD dictionary definition, not the special definition that you Trinitarians use.

You know "person" as in "individual" or separate being. That definition.

To identify God as a "person" in our human context is not applicable to God as spirit.

Also the quote you used was not what I said it was from a Mormon missionary training manual where it identifies the modalistic point of view which is not the Trinitarian view, get it?:

THE CHURCHES ALSO TAUGHT THAT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST, HIS SON, WERE BOTH THE SAME PERSON. . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And Trinitarianism is not true Monotheism.

Actually it is not monothesitic in any sense other then they say that they are monothesitic because there is only one nature. I fail to see how 3 distinct beings does not make 3 Gods. Just sharing one nature does not mean there is only physically one God. Just as we 6 billion persons on the earth share the human nature that does not mean there is only one human.

[Vance]

To identify God as a "person" in our human context is not applicable to God as spirit.

????

Then why do Trinitarians apply "person" to God?

Also the quote you used was not what I said it was from a Mormon missionary training manual

I know that. That is why we know that the word person in that context means an individual/being and not the special Trinitarian definition. Where it explained the Trinitarian view the the Father and Son are one being/individual.

Other people are NOT required to use YOUR special definitions when describing your theology to others.

where it identifies the modalistic point of view which is not the Trinitarian view, get it?:

The Trinitarian view is that "they" "are" one being. In non-Trinitarian parlance that would be one person, or one individual with multiple personalities.